DOCSLIB.ORG

Anarchism, Postmodernity, and Poststructuralism Gabriel Kuhn

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anarchism, Postmodernity, and Poststructuralism Gabriel Kuhn Anarchism, Postmodernity, and Poststructuralism Gabriel Kuhn Published in Randall Amster et al., Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy (New York: Routledge, 2009), pp. 18-25. Postmodernity and poststructuralism have been embraced in many intellectual circles since the late 1980s. Anarchist theory, though, has been a cautious suitor. In fact, a steadfast rebuttal of anything postmodern/poststructuralist has even united some of its most unrelenting foes (cf. Zerzan 1991; Albert n.d.). Since the beginning of the decade, however, there has been an increased interest in postmodernity’s and poststructuralism’s relevance for anarchist thought and praxis. It is the intent of this essay to investigate this interest, including its development and focus as well as its promises and flaws. For the sake of clarity, I want to begin with a terminological distinction, since a curious confusion has plagued the discussions around postmodernity/poststructuralism for nearly two decades. The terms “postmodernity” and “poststructuralism” have different origins and have carried different discursive connotations until they began to be used increasingly as synonyms. The meanings of terms do of course depend on their use and circulation within a community of speakers and any attempt at defining their “true” meaning only makes us look foolish. At the same time, it seems natural in intellectual debates to use the terminological tools at hand in ways that allow for somewhat differentiated rather than oversimplified discussion. For example, I am convinced that the sweeping generalizations that sometimes characterize anarchist opposition to anything postmodern/poststructuralist would vanish once a simple distinction was made: that between an indeed irritating and politically non- or counter-productive jargon in the name of “postmodern thought” on the one hand; and radically inspired poststructuralist (and sometimes postmodern) critiques of the Platonic tradition and its repressive implications on the other. In the context of this essay, “postmodernity” will refer to a socio-cultural condition, namely the one outlined by Jean-François Lyotard in La condition postmoderne, in which Lyotard (1979) applied an attribute mainly branded in architecture and the arts to society as a whole. An anarchist engagement with postmodernity would hence consist of an anarchist analysis of this condition – potentially helping anarchists to understand the socio-cultural dynamics of postmodern times, anarchists’ positions within these, and the implied challenges as well as possibilities for the struggle against the State. “Poststructuralism,” on the other hand, will refer to a body of theory – developed by Lyotard, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Jacques Derrida, and others – aimed at breaking the intellectual sway of structuralist thought in France following the events of May 1968.1 An anarchist engagement with poststructuralism would hence consist of an anarchist evaluation of the usefulness of poststructuralist theory for anarchism’s aims. The distinction between a socio-cultural condition and a body of theory becomes somewhat blurred by the term postmodernism, which is most commonly understood as a movement of thought embracing the postmodern condition and attempting to strengthen pluralist theory – thereby echoing a main feature of the poststructuralist endeavor. However, “postmodernism” remains a much wider term than “poststructuralism” and is used as a reference for everything from Jenny Holzer’s conceptual art to Jonathan Kramer’s music theory to Richard Rorty’s liberal 1 It is important to note that the term “poststructuralism” has never been more precise than sketched here. It has never been anything but a term of convenience that amalgamates a number of individual writers who, without doubt, have worked along common themes and with shared ambitions, but who never set out to form a “movement,” let alone one called “poststructuralism.” politics. In fact, it might today include every expression of thought that does not navigate around pillars of God, human nature, or historical determinism. In such light, “poststructuralism” is indeed, in the words of Lewis Call (2002: 14), best understood as “a variety of postmodern thinking.” ANARCHISM AND POSTMODERNITY Postmodernity has left its mark on anarchism in various subtle ways. Concepts like those of a “small-a anarchism” – championed by David Graeber (2002), Starhawk (2004), and others – do, for example, distinctly resonate with times in which references to anything potentially “meta- narrative” seem to indicate an ungainly lack of intellectual refinement. Yet, surprisingly little has been published in terms of explicit anarchist reflections of and on postmodern culture. Lewis Call’s Postmodern Anarchism (2002) is by far the most extensive effort in this respect. After sketching a “postmodern matrix” and suggesting anarchism to be “a political philosophy which seems perfectly well suited to the postmodern world,” Postmodern Anarchism embarks on its journey to the “metastrand” of the indicated matrix, namely “the strand of science fiction literature known as cyberpunk” (2002: 11). In the course of this journey we encounter a generous evocation of Friedrich Nietzsche, a refreshing reading of Jean Baudrillard, and a widely acclaimed final chapter on the science fiction of William Gibson and Bruce Sterling whose writings exemplify for Call “a radical politics for the new millennium: a politics of postmodern anarchism” (2002: 24). Call’s work might not allow for the most spectacular theoretical leaps, but it certainly stands as an important marker for the possibilities of anarchist moments entrenched in the postmodern condition. Unfortunately, few such additional markers can be found. Then again, the question arises whether we still need them when “postmodernity” itself becomes questionable as an apt description of our socio-cultural make-up. Hardt and Negri’s Empire (2000) is just one recent model that could be interpreted as an indication of the necessity to re-employ the long shunned “meta-narratives” in order to properly understand the workings of current social, cultural, political and economic dynamics. At the same time, the authors’ concept of a “multitude” as the most promising force of resistance – in its inherent plurality – might still be deemed a “postmodern” concept. If anything, this only goes to show that the complexity of the historical trajectory supersedes neat categories like “modernity” and “postmodernity,” and that (with particular regard to the relationship between anarchism and postmodernity) a re-evaluation of the analytical usefulness of the postmodern notion itself seems paramount. ANARCHISM AND POSTSTRUCTURALISM Todd May’s book The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism (1994), building on an earlier essay entitled “Is Post-Structuralist Political Theory Anarchist?” (1989), is usually referenced as the first broad attempt to fuse traditional anarchist thought with poststructuralist theory. Whether this claim holds true or not, the book must certainly count as a major contribution to the respective effort. At its core lies the conviction that “traditional anarchism,” while an important ethical and political guide, has theoretically been embedded in the “naturalist” and “essentialist” philosophy of the 19th century and its many epistemological shortcomings. Poststructuralism then enters the scene with a “political theory” that “replaces traditional anarchism’s a priori” (May 1994: 87) and that has the ability to infuse anarchism with new analytical and theoretical vigor. In 2001, Australian Saul Newman published From Bakunin to Lacan, which recapped many of the contentions in May’s work. Where the books differ is in the direction they take once they set out on what Newman elsewhere called the “salvage operation poststructuralism is to do on anarchism” (Newman 2003a). While May – via Lyotard, Foucault and Deleuze – ends up discussing analytic moral philosophy, Newman – by way of Stirner [who, according to Newman (2001:6) “provides an obvious but hitherto unexplored connection with poststructuralism”], Foucault, Deleuze/Guattari, and Derrida – finds his savior in Lacan who helps him “to theorize a non-essentialist outside to power” (2001: 160). While the publication of May’s book had gone more or less unnoticed, From Bakunin to Lacan was instantly acknowledged as an innovative contribution to anarchist discourse. The reasons for this discrepancy I see as threefold: (1) by 2001, poststructuralist theory had become such a strong and present player in many theoretical fields that anarchist intellectuals could hardly maintain their categorical rejection of it without appearing hopelessly anachronistic; (2) Newman’s book was published within the post-Seattle “New Anarchism” euphoria which granted immediate and almost unconditional interest to anything hyped as “anarchist” and “new;” and (3) Newman had come up with a fancy and intriguing label for his position, namely that of “postanarchism” – a label he continues to promote and has most recently defined as indicating “a project of renewing the anarchist tradition through a critique of essentialist identities and the assertion instead of the contingency of politics” (Newman 2007: 4). As with May’s book, From Bakunin to Lacan is an important and inspiring exploration of the value of poststructuralist thought for anarchism. There remain certain theoretical problems, however. The most
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Structures of Desire: Postanarchist Kink in the Speculative Fiction Of
    Chapter 7 Structures of desire Postanarchist kink in the speculative fiction of Octavia Butler and Samuel Delany Lewis Call It's a beautiful universe ... wondrous and the more exciting because no one has written plays and poems and built sculptures to indicate the structure of desire I negotiate every day as I move about in it. -Samuel Delany, Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand The problem of power is one of the major philosophical and political preoccupations of the modern West. It is a problem which has drawn the attention of some of the greatest minds of the nineteenth and twentieth cen­ turies, including Fried~ich Nietzsche and Michel Foucault. I have argued else­ where that the philosophies of power articulated by Nietzsche and Foucault stand as prototypes of an innovative form of anarchist theory, one which finds liberatory potential in the disintegration of the modern self and its liberal humanist politics (Call 2002: chs 1 and 2). Lately this kind of theory has become known as postanarchism. For me, postanarchism refers to a form of contemporary anarchist theory which draws extensively upon postmodern and poststructuralist philosophy in order to push anarchism beyond its traditional boundaries. Postanarchism tries to do this by adding important new ideas to anarchism's traditional critiques of statism and capitalism. Two of these ideas are especially significant for the present essay: the Foucauldian philosophy of power, which sees power as omnipresent but allows us to distinguish between power's various forms, and the Lacanian concept of subjectivity, which understands the self to be constituted by and through its desire.
    [Show full text]
  • Bgsu1245712232.Pdf (295.66
    BODILY BORDERS/NATIONAL BORDERS: TOWARD A POST-NATIONALIST VALUATION OF LIFE IN THE CASE OF KIMBERLY MEDINA-TEJADA Jason Zeh A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS August 2009 Committee: Jolie Sheffer, Advisor Kimberly Coates © 2009 Jason Zeh All Rights Reserved ii ABSTRACT Dr Jolie Sheffer, Advisor Drawing upon the theories of Judith Butler, William Godwin, Gloria Anzaldúa, and Michel Foucault, I perform a close reading and textual analysis of a February 24, 2006 court case from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California entitled “Richardo Medina-Tejada, Plaintiff, v. Sacramento County; Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department; Sheriff Lou Blanas; and Does 1 through XXX, inclusive, Defendants.” In this case, Kimberly (Richardo) Medina-Tejada, a transgender illegal immigrant from Mexico, challenges the constitutionality of her classification by the Sheriff’s Department as a “T-Sep,” or “total separation” inmate, while detained in the Sacramento County Main Jail awaiting deportation. The project explores a particular convergence of nationally specific discourses on race, gender, and citizenship that render Medina-Tejada’s body unintelligible and incapable of being afforded moral worth. I argue that the Nation-State, as a unit of social, political, economic, and cultural organization, is a fragile concept that must be vigorously guarded against threats to its epistemological foundations. This case reveals the State’s profound fear of transgressive modes of embodiment that challenge the categories upon which it is built. As such, Medina-Tejada’s body becomes a site in which the State’s oppression and repression of individual bodies becomes evident.
    [Show full text]
  • The Multiple Self: Exploring Between and Beyond Modernity and Postmodernity John A
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1997 The ultM iple Self: Exploring between and beyond Modernity and Postmodernity John A. Powell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Powell, John A., "The ultM iple Self: Exploring between and beyond Modernity and Postmodernity" (1997). Minnesota Law Review. 1669. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1669 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Multiple Self: Exploring Between and Beyond Modernity and Postmodernity john a. powell* [W]e are all androgynous, not only because we are all born of a woman impregnated by the seed of a man but because each of us, help- lessly and forever, contains the other-male in female, female in male, white in black, and black in white. We are a part of each other... [Nione of us can do anything about it. -James Baldwin' I frequently have difficulty sorting out how to think about a number of issues in my life. The problem is not so much that I do not know what I think and feel. Instead, it is that I think and feel many different and conflicting things2 and I do not have the capacity to simply sort them out. Sometimes, I let the different voices engage each other in a dialogue and find an intrasubjective solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Modernity Versus Postmodernity Author(S): Jürgen Habermas and Seyla Ben-Habib Source: New German Critique, No
    Modernity versus Postmodernity Author(s): Jürgen Habermas and Seyla Ben-Habib Source: New German Critique, No. 22, Special Issue on Modernism (Winter, 1981), pp. 3-14 Published by: New German Critique Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/487859 . Accessed: 14/01/2014 13:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New German Critique. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.59.129.186 on Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:17:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Modernityversus Postmodernity* by JiirgenHabermas Last year,architects were admittedto theBiennial in Venice, following paintersand filmmakers.The note sounded at thisfirst Architecture Bien- nial was o'he of disappointment.I would describe it by sayingthat those who exhibitedin Venice formedan avant-gardeof reversedfronts. I mean that theysacrificed the traditionof modernityin orderto make roomfor a new historicism.Upon thisoccasion, a criticof the German newspaper, FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung, advanced a thesis whose significance reaches beyond thisparticular event; it is a diagnosisof our times:"Post- modernitydefinitely presents itselfas Antimodernity."This statement describesan emotionalcurrent of our timeswhich has penetratedall spheres of intellectuallife.
    [Show full text]
  • Anarchism's Other Scene
    Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies ISSN: 1923-5615 2013.2: Ontological Anarché: Beyond Materialism and Idealism Editors’ Introduction Anarchism’s Other Scene Materializing the Ideal and Idealizing the Material Duane Rousselle & Jason Adams While more will be sa id about this below, we begin this issue in the simplest fashion: by recalling a few of the basic questions according to which the interventions here were initially assem- bled: • Is it the case, as Marx famously held in The German Ideology and The Poverty of Philosophy , that anar- chism has failed to account for the full complexity of the ontological? • Has there been a lack of concern within anarchism (historically speaking) with the actual circumstances that would make social transformation possible? • Has a narchism been a theory for which materiality was, as Marx put it, “distorted in the imagination of the egoist,” producing a subject “for whom every- thing occurs in the imagination?” • Should “Sancho” (Max Stirner), for example, have “descended from the real m of speculation into the realm of reality”? • Is the opposition of materialism and idealism itself a barrier to a higher, more powerful c onvergence, as recent anarchist/ anarchistic thinkers from Hakim Bey to Reiner Schürmann (and beyond) have arg ued? Certainly, we would not reduce these questions purely down to a simplistic confrontation between “Marxist materialism” and “anarchist 2 | DUANE ROUSSELLE & JASON ADAMS idealism”—and, particularly not today, when, in the wake of num- erous post-anarchist and post-Marxist interventions, “anarchist materialists” and “Marxist idealists” alike are at least as common as their inversions were in the past.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Domestication of Historical Sociology
    The Rise and Domestication of" Historical Sociology Craig Calhoun Historical sociology is not really new, though it has enjoyed a certain vogue in the last twenty years. In fact, historical research and scholarship (including comparative history) was central to the work of many of the founders and forerunners of sociology-most notably Max Weber but also in varying degrees Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Alexis de Tocqueville among others. It was practiced with distinction more recently by sociologists as disparate as George Homans, Robert Merton, Robert Bellah, Seymour Martin Lipset, Charles Tilly, J. A. Banks, Shmuel Eisenstadt, Reinhard Bendix, Barrington Moore, and Neil Smelser. Why then, should historical sociology have seemed both new and controversial in the 1970s and early 1980s? The answer lies less in the work of historical sociologists themselves than in the orthodoxies of mainstream, especially American, sociology of the time. Historical sociologists picked one battle for themselves: they mounted an attack on modernization theory, challenging its unilinear developmental ten- dencies, its problematic histori<:al generalizations and the dominance (at least in much of sociology) of culture and psycllology over political economy. In this attack, the new generation of historical sociologists challenged the most influential of their immediate forebears (and sometimes helped to create the illusion that historical sociology was the novel invention of the younger gener- ation). The other major battle was thrust upon historical sociologists when many leaders of the dominant quantitative, scientistic branch of the discipline dismissed their work as dangerously "idiographic," excessively political, and in any case somehow not quite 'real' sociology. Historical sociology has borne the marks of both battles, and in some sense, like an army always getting ready to fight the last war, it remains unnecessarily preoccupied with them.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Anarchism in Grant Morrison's the Invisibles
    4. “A Thought Thinking Itself:” Post-anarchism in Grant Morrison’s The Invisibles Lewis Call* Grant Morrison’s The Invisibles (1994-2000) tells the tale of a diverse band of anarchist freedom fighters. Morrison’s narrative follows the adventures of a cell within a centuries-old revolutionary organization called the Invisible College. The leader of this cell is King Mob, a bald, pierced fetishist, who resembles Morrison more than a little. Three of King Mob’s fellow “Invisibles” present as women: the cross-dressing Brazilian shaman Lord Fanny, a slightly insane time-travelling redhead called Ragged Robin, and an African-American former cop who calls herself Boy. The cell’s newest recruit is Jack Frost, a foul-mouthed working-class punk from Liverpool. Together these Invisible revolutionaries fight against an interdimensional authoritarian conspiracy called the “Outer Church.” This Outer Church works towards a world in which political, economic and religious institutions unite to create a system of total authority. Meanwhile, the Invisible College works towards the opposite end: a left- libertarian world based upon individual freedom, inclusive diversity, and universal access to the means of happiness (including sex, drugs, and magic). The Invisibles can thus be read as an inspirational story of anti-authoritarian rebellion: a strange, beautiful, anarchist fairy tale. Yet, The Invisibles is much more than that. Morrison’s comic is also a post-anarchist cultural artifact. Post-anarchism is a radical form of anarchist theory that first emerged in the 1980s. It draws on twentieth century post-structuralism and post- modernism to extend anarchism’s critical power beyond its traditional targets, capitalism and the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Editorial: Postanarchism
    Editorial: Postanarchism SAUL NEWMAN Postanarchism is emerging as an important new current in anarchist thought, and it is the source of growing interest and debate amongst anarchist activists and scholars alike, as well as in broader academic circles. Given the number of internet sites, discussion groups, and new books and journal publications appearing on postanarchism, it is time that the challenges it poses to classical anarchist thought and practice are taken more seriously. Postanarchism refers to a wide body of theory – encompassing political theory, philosophy, aesthetics, literature and film studies – which attempts to explore new directions in anarchist thought and politics. While it includes a number of different perspectives and trajectories, the central contention of postanarchism is that classical anarchist philosophy must take account of new theoretical directions and cultural phenomena, in particular, postmodernity and poststructuralism. While these theoretical categories have had a major impact on different areas of scholarship and thought, as well as politics, anarchism tends to have remained largely resistant to these developments and continues to work within an Enlightenment humanist epistemological framework1 which many see as being in need of updating. At the same time, anarchism – as a form of political theory and practice – is becoming increasingly important to radical struggles and global social movements today, to a large extent supplanting Marxism. Postanarchism seeks to revitalise anarchist theory in light of these new struggles and forms of resistance. However, rather than dismissing the tradition of classical anarchism, postanarchism, on the contrary, seeks to explore its potential and radicalise its possibilities. It remains entirely consistent, I would suggest, with the libertarian and egal- itarian horizon of anarchism; yet it seeks to broaden the terms of anti-authoritarian thought to include a critical analysis of language, discourse, culture and new modalities of power.
    [Show full text]
  • "Political Postmodernity." Anarchism and Political Modernity. New York: Continuum, 2012
    Jun, Nathan. "Political postmodernity." Anarchism and Political Modernity. New York: Continuum, 2012. 155–186. Contemporary Anarchist Studies. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 25 Sep. 2021. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781501306785.ch-006>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 25 September 2021, 23:20 UTC. Copyright © Nathan Jun 2012. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 6 Political postmodernity Defi ning postmodernity One of my foremost goals has been to show that anarchism, both historically and theoretically, has constituted a movement beyond political modernity. At the highest level of generality, I have defi ned political modernity in terms of representation—representation of the subject, of society, of the world, of the relationships among them. To the extent that anarchism has distinguished itself chiefl y as a critique of, and alternative to, representation, to the extent that it has moved beyond the discourse of political modernity, it is fair to say that I have achieved this goal. But I want to go a step further and reiterate a claim I made earlier—namely, that anarchism is rightly termed the fi rst “postmodern” political philosophy. Rudolf Pannwitz, who was the fi rst to use “postmodern” as a sociological term de l’art in 1917, defi ned postmodernity as “nihilism and the collapse of values in contemporary European culture.” 1 If we generalize (and soften) Pannwitz’s defi nition a bit—such that “postmodern” refers only to what is generally opposed to, or stands outside, or moves beyond modernity— there is nothing anachronistic about calling the anarchists “postmodern,” especially in juxtaposition to what I identifi ed as characteristically “modern” in previous chapters.
    [Show full text]
  • Existentialism, Globalisation and the Cultural Other Gavin Sanderson Flinders University [email protected]
    International Education Journal Vol 4, No 4, 2004 Educational Research Conference 2003 Special Issue http://iej.cjb.net 1 Existentialism, Globalisation and the Cultural Other Gavin Sanderson Flinders University [email protected] Globalisation is not a new phenomenon but the world has never before been subject to global forces that are characterised by such extensity, intensity, velocity and impact. Modern technology and communications effectively compress human time and space and we regard the world as a smaller place. One outcome of this has been greater contact with the ‘Cultural Other’. No longer can we think of ‘strangers and the strange’ as dislocated entities that are peripheral to our own lives1. For this to be a positive experience for all parties, there are some shortcomings to acknowledge and some hurdles to overcome. Concisely, we have been inconsistent in our efforts to connect with the Cultural Other. Furthermore, current neo-liberal globalisation agendas would not seem to augur well for improving on this record. This paper examines our contemporary engagement with the Cultural Other from an existential perspective and introduces the idea of the ‘fear of the unknown’ as a foundation of our difficulty in accepting Otherness. It also offers a way forward by means of the internationalisation of the self. Existentialism, Globalisation, Cultural Other, ‘Known Unknown’, Internationalisation INTRODUCTION This paper was originally going to focus on the impact of world events on tertiary education in Australia. The more thought that was given to the foundation themes it dealt with, however, the more it was realised that they are neither new nor exclusive to education, yet they are at the same critical to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Poststructuralism and Postmodernism in International Relations
    Poststructuralism and Postmodernism in International Relations Poststructuralism and Postmodernism in International Relations Aslı Çalkıvik Subject: International Relations Theory Online Publication Date: Nov 2017 DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.102 Updates to sections “Disciplinary Context of the Poststructural/Postmodern Turn” and “Poststructural/Postmodern Approaches in IR”; new section “On Value and Develop­ ment,” references, and links to digital materials. Updated on 31 March 2020. The previous version of this content can be found here. Summary and Keywords Poststructural/postmodern international relations (IR) is a mode of critical thinking and analysis that joined disciplinary conversations during the 1980s and, despite the dismis­ sive reception it has initially faced, it is a vibrant and expanding area of research within the field today. Providing a radical critique of politics in modernity, it is less a new para­ digm or theory. Instead, it is better described as “a critical attitude” that focuses on the question of representation and explores the ways in which dominant framings of world politics produce and reproduce relations of power: how they legitimate certain forms of action while marginalizing other ways of being, thinking, and acting. To elaborate the in­ sights of poststructuralism/postmodernism, the article starts off by situating the emer­ gence of these critical perspectives within the disciplinary context and visits the debates and controversies it has elicited. This discussion is followed by an elaboration of the ma­ jor themes and concepts of poststructural/postmodern thought such as subjectivity, lan­ guage, text, and power. The convergences and divergences between poststructuralism and its precursor—structuralism—is an underlying theme that is noted in this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Structuralism Dialogue Between Postmodernism and the Catholic Tradi- and the So-Called Russian Formalists
    Post-Structuralism dialogue between postmodernism and the Catholic tradi- and the so-called Russian formalists. Among the most tion is ongoing and has already borne copious fruit. important representatives of post-structuralist philosophy are Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), Gilles Deleuze (1925– SEE ALSO DECONSTRUCTIONISM;DIFFERENCE;LOGOCENTRISM;RE- 1995), Jean-François Lyotard (1924–1998), Jacques ALISM;RELATIVISM. Lacan (1901–1981), Michel Foucault (1926–1984), and Slavoj Žižek and his school. Though many of the BIBLIOGRAPHY representatives have French backgrounds, their theories De Schrijver, Georges. “Postmodernity and the Withdrawal of have had influence all over the world, especially in the the Divine: A Challenge for Theology.” In Sacramental Pres- areas of philosophy of language, ETHICS, NEOPRAGMA- ence in a Postmodern Context, edited by Lieven Boeve and TISM, literary theory, and gender studies. In the United Lambert Leijssen, 39–64. Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 2001. States, the works of Richard Rorty (1931–2007) and Judith Butler are often associated with post-structuralism. John Paul II. Fides et ratio. [Encyclical Letter on the Relation- ship between Faith and Reason]. September 14, 1998. http:// What distinguishes structuralism from post-structuralism www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/docu is not always easy to identify, but as a general rule post- ments/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html. structuralists see their theories as based on structuralism’s Lyotard, Jean-François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on philosophy of language (Saussure) and anthropology Knowledge. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Mas- (Lévi-Strauss), but they apply those insights to a wider sumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
    [Show full text]